Belief

[corey123]

Hello Mike,

Logic tell's me they wouldn't.

p.s I have sent you the essay

[mklhawley]

So true Phil. Now, we do know police officials in major cities around the world were putting the pressure on Scotland Yard. Would it not have been in their interest to capture the killer/killers. If so, why would they promote a single killer if that was not the case?

Mike

[corey123]

Hello Mike, Simon, Phil,

I believe it all comes down to bias. Opinions are everywhere. Theories are abound. I do believe "Jack the Ripper" as a literary sence is fictional but not the inspiration behind the name. Yes the letter was ahoax, but was the hoax not set upon the story of truth?

Yours truly

[Phil Carter]

Regardless of what the papers said, it looks to me like Scotland Yard officials considered a single murderer..... Did the papers bias their investigation to this extent?

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

One can also consider, can one not, if the police biased things as well...

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If it was true that Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky, the sources of the name Jack the Ripper, were journalistic hoaxes [vide Anderson and Littlechild], then a murderer styling himself as such did not exist. But the top echelons in Whitehall did not make public their suspicions about the nature of this correspondence. Instead, they plastered facsimile posters of the letter and postcard across the city and encouraged belief amongst their divisional rank and file in the wholly mythical Jack.

The Times, 20th October 1888—

" . . . Last night, when the policemen on night duty were drawn up in their respective station-yards, preparatory to going on their beats, the last letter sent by "Jack the Ripper" was read over to them. It was pointed out that the writer intimated his intention of committing further murders last night, and the necessity for special vigilance was impressed upon the police."

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Groupers and Splitters

Greetings all,

I have to put my two cents in. My belief is Tabram plus the C5, yet I fully admit I emotionally resist arguments to the contrary. …but of course I’m always right. I also have to admit I am a “grouper” not a “splitter”.

In science, we look for patterns in nature. Patterns just might reveal the truth, such as the discovery of an unusually high concentration of iridium in 65 million year old sedimentary rocks across the globe (evidence for an extraterrestrial impact). Lynn has attempted to do with the murders. The problem is patterns can merely be artifacts of data collection, statistics, and also of visual bias. There is an admitted problem we have in science - some scientists are groupers and some are splitters. For example, some anthropologists conclude a human evolutionary pattern starting with Australopithecus afarensis to Homo habilis to Homo erectus and finally to Homo sapiens, while others conclude these four groups are actually split into ten.

Regardless of what the papers said, it looks to me like Scotland Yard officials considered a single murderer. I have difficulty discounting detectives that lived through the experience and were privy to all of the evidence (which we probably are not). Did the papers bias their investigation to this extent?

Sincerely,

Mike

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

Indeed they can.

Simon,

I have a question. Can one not belive in both sides of the story? Can one not believe both to be possible?

I do.

Edit: Phil, I am sorry if that seemed like I was responding only to you. That was ment for everyone on both sides.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Corey,

I didn't say there was a fact.. I mentioned personal belief. I also mentioned factors though..lol One can believe in factors affecting the outcome, can one not?

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

I am sorry but I must make the thread go full circle. The name states what we are talking about. A belief, not a fact nor anything but a belief.

Yours truly

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

I agree that Lynn's theory is plausable, but that is because it is the only one I have seen that makes much sense. Honestly everything is plausable in a case this old.

Saying something isn't plausable, in my mind, is just being close minded.

Hello Corey,

Indeed, the last sentence is crucial. For therein lies the rub. Open mindedness to consider the non-existance of a single beast called "Jack the Ripper" is tantamount, in some quarters, to hell freezing over.

If Lynn's presentation is plausible, that the C1 and C2 are of a different hand, and if Stride is a non-canonical as has been shown is a possibility not just a plausibility, then there is no single serial murderer called Jack the Ripper. Therefore to believe that Jack the Ripper, the single serial killer, never existed, isn't so incredible and unbelievable.

Those two factors, one plausible, one possible, are not sensationalist. But the remaining overview after those two factors come in, is sensational... to some....

I have previously stated it often as my personal belief, that the background for these happenings is of very great importance. That is to say..the police, the newspapers, the political climate, the people living in and around the area and the level and consequences of action and non-action taken, by both individuals and groups, have an enormous effect. It is a snowball rolling down a hill. It gathered it's own momentum after being given a hefty shove by certain people. Newspapermen, police, vigilance members and various other individuals included. All adding fuel to the fire. And all the time the ordinary working man and woman and the poorest of the poor were frightened out of their skins! For they bought the myth hook line and sinker, even helping to perpetuate it themselves...

That is why some believe "Jack the Ripper" as he has been presented to us, is a myth. That is plausible, even possible too.

Indeed, I totally agree with your last line, above.

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Hello Lynn,

It is possible.

I might like to add a new suspect to the list. Alien Jack.(heh heh)

[lynn cates]

appendices

Hello Corey. My induction was based on quantity of wounds only--not quality. Of course, it is but conjecture.

I know what you mean about reading frenzy into the kinds of wounds that the C5 experienced. But consider the following. You are from another country (planet, if you like) and are unaware of surgery. On the other hand, you know sharp things and anger. If you were examining an appendectomy patient, say, you might note with horror the deep abdominal wound and--what's this!--an organ is missing. Now, frenzy would easily be understood in such a context; but, it is also possible that the trained surgeon cut dispassionately, removed the appendix with the same dispassion, all in the hopes of saving life.

Just thinking aloud.

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

Hello Lynn,

You mean a bias. Yes we do.

Also, if you look at the anatomy of it, whether by the hand of one or four men, it seems rage was there. The frenzied stabbing of Tabram, the frenzied slashing of Nichols, the haphazardous cuting of Chapman and Eddowes and of coarse why need I breach upon Kelly?

[lynn cates]

model

Hello Corey. I know what you mean. Often I had wished to see the killer's face as he mutilated in order to see if anger were present--or just clinical coolness and preciseness.

Of course, one should keep an open mind. I think I have. On the other hand, we all have a preferred model guiding us.

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

Hello Lynn,

Honestly I think all of the murders show a bit of rage in them if you look hard enough.

I don't think picking sides is a good way to go, but rather to keep your mind open to anything and everything.